National Trust and parking overnight...an idea.

[ManTheVan]

There must be many here who have parked overnight in a NT car park over the years, but the Trust now officially state ‘No overnight parking’ due to abuse/mis-use by the few who spoil it for the many. They cite litter, fires, human waste deposits, etc., as prime motivations behind their policy.

The NT does have thousands of car parks in beautiful places. Motorhomers are always looking for lovely, peaceful places to stay.

I also presume there will be many here who are NT members. I would also like to think that all MHF members are responsible people who respect the countryside.

So, here’s an idea. Perhaps there would be merit in sufficient numbers of members who own completely self-contained units joining a movement to approach the National Trust, with an organised proposal for the Trust to create an extra category of membership for members with self-contained Motorhomes, (i.e. with own fresh, grey and black water storage, toilet, kitchen, litter-storage, etc.) which would offer overnight parking in their vast network of car parks for a set fee.

The add-on to membership might be £50, (similar to club memberships) then a standard charge of, say, £5/night for a maximum of 2 nights in any one place. The system could be reinforced with a steep fine for those parking without authorisation (as is common in most private car parks) or for those abusing the privilege.

It would be win-win for all concerned. The NT gains extra income, members with Motorhomes gain low-cost overnighting in beautiful places and abusers of the system pay dearly for breaches.

Some enlightened local authorities (e.g. Taw & Torridge DC) have a similar system running in some of their car parks and it works brilliantly.

Getting the National Trust on board would be a major achievement with benefits for everyone. What does the forum feel?

 

[rickwiggans]

The Campaign for Real Aires group are doing just what you suggest. Great idea. They have a FB page, worth following

 

[15edward]

The Campaign for real aires on Facebook are suggesting that National Trust members email questions to the AGM in November with this idea

 

[15edward]

Snap!

 

[nicholsong]

There must be many here who have parked overnight in a NT car park over the years, but the Trust now officially state ‘No overnight parking’ due to abuse/mis-use by the few who spoil it for the many. They cite litter, fires, human waste deposits, etc., as prime motivations behind their policy.

The NT does have thousands of car parks in beautiful places. Motorhomers are always looking for lovely, peaceful places to stay.

I also presume there will be many here who are NT members. I would also like to think that all MHF members are responsible people who respect the countryside.

So, here’s an idea. Perhaps there would be merit in sufficient numbers of members who own completely self-contained units joining a movement to approach the National Trust, with an organised proposal for the Trust to create an extra category of membership for members with self-contained Motorhomes, (i.e. with own fresh, grey and black water storage, toilet, kitchen, litter-storage, etc.) which would offer overnight parking in their vast network of car parks for a set fee.

The add-on to membership might be £50, (similar to club memberships) then a standard charge of, say, £5/night for a maximum of 2 nights in any one place. The system could be reinforced with a steep fine for those parking without authorisation (as is common in most private car parks) or for those abusing the privilege.

It would be win-win for all concerned. The NT gains extra income, members with Motorhomes gain low-cost overnighting in beautiful places and abusers of the system pay dearly for breaches.

Some enlightened local authorities (e.g. Taw & Torridge DC) have a similar system running in some of their car parks and it works brilliantly.

Getting the National Trust on board would be a major achievement with benefits for everyone. What does the forum feel?

So who would pay for an attendant to enforce unauthorised parking for just a few MH spaces? LAs have them doing it for hundreds of cars in several car parks.

Who would srvice the facilities? The most frequent being the rubbish disposal?

Geoff

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[15edward]

Those are the sort of issues that are dealt With very comprehensively by the Facebook campaign

 

[mikebeaches]

It sounds a good idea to me.

As NT members, we have stayed overnight at Stourhead with the authorisation of the duty manager and a nominal payment (£5), if I recall. There is (was) a CMHC CL located there, but we were not members at the time, and just stayed in the car park. It worked well for us.

 

[Wombles]

It would be great - we have suggested something similar to National Trust in the past but haven't managed to reach anyone who could make it happen. Perhaps a group effort might achieve this - certainly worth trying

 

[Sunnyb]

We are life members of the National Trust and would definitely support this.

 

[Polobonnie100]

You can stay overnight in the main carpark at Stourhead NT, Wiltshire for £10. They also have a CL for £20 which is a corner, fenced off with facilities in the overflow carpark.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Brains]

Also a member of the NT and would support this.
However the NT unfortunately do not have a history of taking notice of members demands or interests.

I've still not forgotten that before the government hunting ban, the NT balloted their members on weather hunting should be banned on NT property, unsurprisingly 80% of the members backed the motion.
The NT board then refused to take the ballot into consideration and hunting continued up until it was banned by law.
The NT still to this day have an issue with hunting on their land, on a number of occasions they have been caught unofficially turning a blind eye to hunts

 

[15edward]

All NT members will have had their notification of the AGM which included the form for questions.
enough questions on this topic from members from here added to the questions from Campaign members should be quite a bombardment - maybe enough to listen to.
maybe stating Stourhead as an example that works?

 

[sedge]

Sorry about the pro and anti hunting diehards - I am a very firm advocate of proper management of wildlife. Part of that management includes culling of old elderly, infirm or a greater number of those wild animals than the land they live on can adequately support them sufficiently for their ongoing health.

It is expensive to do, this management, but eg when properly done you can't just turn up randomly with your pair of matched eg Purdeys and take potshots at any (eg) deer you happen to see - the Keepers know their stock and which ones need to be removed and why.

Hate & loathe those grey tree rats - they are utterly responsible for all but wiping out our native and far more attractive Red squirrels. Foxes are now forced to scavenge in urban gardens to support their uncontrolled breeding. I wonder what happened to cause that? (not)

 

[ManTheVan]

Well, that seems to have had a positive response from folk! I’m not really much of a Facebreak user, but will look up the group. If any members here would like to add questions to the AGM then I’m sure it will all be grist to the mill. The best approach still has to be a joint one, I believe.

 

[jongood]

I applaud the effort and would support pretty much anything that promotes aires in the UK. I have also stayed at Stourhead (glad to see its still possible) and a few others and its a different experience waking up in the beautiful parkland.

The reason given to my previous letter to the NT and a subsequent one to Visit Britain was that they had both consulted the Caravan Club who had told them it wasnt a good idea. I think that for this to succeed the 'clubs' need to be weakened and the best way to do this is to refuse to join.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

So, here’s an idea. Perhaps there would be merit in sufficient numbers of members who own completely self-contained units joining a movement to approach the National Trust, with an organised proposal for the Trust to create an extra category of membership for members with self-contained Motorhomes, (i.e. with own fresh, grey and black water storage, toilet, kitchen, litter-storage, etc.) which would offer overnight parking in their vast network of car parks for a set fee.

There is nothing wrong with the idea in principle but, like any other landowner, the NT would have to obtain a caravan site licence or CL certificate in order to comply with the legislation in place.

 

[SpeedyDux]

If the NT can set up a proper CL with hardstanding at Stourhead, if there is enough demand the NT should do the same at many other properties they own. It isn't as though they are short of land. Probably short of money for a while.

It's academic at the moment. Due to the pandemic about 80% of NT staff and volunteers have been furloughed or laid off. There is rationing of visits by pre-booked 2 hour timed slots for their car parks (which have plenty of spare spaces at the ones we have been to recently). So no go until circumstances improve.

 

[15edward]

The CL is Caravan and Motorhome Club. But the points the same - they could use any of the other organisations to set up small sites
However, allowing just overnight parking for self contained vehicles seems to be just a matter of permission. The FB group is looking into ways fir this to happen but preferably with water and disposal.
it would seem an ideal solution to have a CL type but allow access from parking for disposal.
This difficult time would seem ideal to allow the parking and bring in some money

 

[nicholsong]

There is nothing wrong with the idea in principle but, like any other landowner, the NT would have to obtain a caravan site licence or CL certificate in order to comply with the legislation in place.

Do they if they just permit longer hours of parking on what is already a car park and if no service facilities are provided?

Do local authorities have to get a site licence if they designate part of their car parks for motorhomes?

Geoff

 

[ManTheVan]

There is nothing wrong with the idea in principle but, like any other landowner, the NT would have to obtain a caravan site licence or CL certificate in order to comply with the legislation in place.

I see what you’re saying, but I don’t believe that Taw & Torridge DC operate their motorhome overnighting on a CL/CS basis. They simply allow overnight sleeping for maximum 2 nights in any one car park. No other facilities provided. No water, no toilet, nothing but car park space. No tents allowed. And they certainly aren’t limited to 5 units. This isn’t camping, it’s extended parking with sleeping permitted.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ManTheVan]

What I’m suggesting would also be a specific, paid add-on to membership only open to those members whose vehicles are completely self-contained (a bit like the New Zealand free camping idea).

 

[Silver-Fox]

What I’m suggesting would also be a specific, paid add-on to membership only open to those members whose vehicles are completely self-contained (a bit like the New Zealand free camping idea).

Referring to NZ their national park areas encourage overnight parking/sleeping.

Many only for SC vans.
Along with the NZMCA that’s got lots of sites again for SC vans.

NZ have it well set up that’s for sure.
An absolute pleasure to tour there

 

[jongood]

What I’m suggesting would also be a specific, paid add-on to membership only open to those members whose vehicles are completely self-contained (a bit like the New Zealand free camping idea).

I think that what we need is a scheme like the NZ self contained scheme, it would give everyone involved more confidence that controls were in place. The NZMCA outshines the crappy caravan club by a country mile.

 

[PeteH]

When suggesting overnighting, we are back to the old saw which has been debated many times here and elsewhere. You can PARK. But you are not allowed to SLEEP. That is regarded as Camping,!!

STUPID. But true.

 

[Sandancers]

On a slightly different, but related topic.

A couple of years ago we looked into going on a NT working holiday. I assumed that as we would be in our motorhome and only require minimal support facilities we would be idea candidates for the NT.

I assumed that as the normal working holidays with the NT entail you paying them to do work for them, while they provide some form of accommodation for you then as we'd not be using their bunk houses then the cost would be reduced for us.

Not so, after doing a lot of investigation I found out that the NT had no facilities for accommodating Motorhomes and that they wanted people to stay in these bunk house type things.

Now call me old fashioned, but the thought of YHA type accommodation does not appeal to me. Who knows who you'd end up sleeping next to?
"Yes, we have a good bunk for you, just next to that nice couple Fred and Rose in the corner." I think not !!

So it did no happen. Surely it would not take much in the way of organisation for the NT to arrange a Motorhome based working holiday. All we'd really need is the normal stuff you'd find on Aires and Festival fields.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[nicholsong]

When suggesting overnighting, we are back to the old saw which has been debated many times here and elsewhere. You can PARK. But you are not allowed to SLEEP. That is regarded as Camping,!!

STUPID. But true.

I have yet to see the law and cases on this point.

Please point me in the right direction.

Geoff

 

[Silver-Fox]

The NZMCA outshines the crappy caravan club by a country mile.

You’re not kidding.

Very helpfull when I phoned them as well.
Couldn’t have been more helpfull

 

[Brains]

Sorry about the pro and anti hunting diehards - I am a very firm advocate of proper management of wildlife. Part of that management includes culling of old elderly, infirm or a greater number of those wild animals than the land they live on can adequately support them sufficiently for their ongoing health.

It is expensive to do, this management, but eg when properly done you can't just turn up randomly with your pair of matched eg Purdeys and take potshots at any (eg) deer you happen to see - the Keepers know their stock and which ones need to be removed and why.

Hate & loathe those grey tree rats - they are utterly responsible for all but wiping out our native and far more attractive Red squirrels. Foxes are now forced to scavenge in urban gardens to support their uncontrolled breeding. I wonder what happened to cause that? (not)

My issue was not pro or anti hunting.
It was that the NT have a long history of ignoring members wishes and demands, even when an overwhelming majority want (and vote in favor of ) a change.

(FYI - I was bought up in Cornwall, family have a large estate there, so I was taught to shoot when guns were bigger than I was, and I still go out on occasional shoots and would love to see tree rats swapped for beavers for example)

 

[emjaiuk]

I have yet to see the law and cases on this point.

Please point me in the right direction.

Geoff

Those that supposedly know state that somewhere in the 1960 Caravan Act it states that sleeping in a vehicle is classed as habitation. All else stems from that.

 

[peterc10]

Those that supposedly know state that somewhere in the 1960 Caravan Act it states that sleeping in a vehicle is classed as habitation. All else stems from that.

In that case there are thousands of lorry drivers breaking the law in laybys and lorry parks up and down the country. That includes motorway service stations which are nearly all owned by the government and leased to the company running them. Never heard of any prosecutions for them sleeping in their trucks.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}